Who regulates TO??

ORIGINAL: lazlowe1

I wonder how TO would respond to knowing that someone that is acting upon themselves as a rep of the company, (in any platform, face to face or online)is treating others with such rude behavior.
[:'(]

 
The really sad thing is, people who have posted who have been able to get e-mails or verbal responses from TO say they get about the same treatment directly from them. I was glad to find an exceptionally polite and helpful distributor/retailer in Only Natural Pet Store.
 
I really, truly wish I trusted TO as a company. The two lower protein grain free formulas are perfect for my needs. But until I'm able to get some clarification on some things, I personally won't feed it. I will feed a food that I'm confident has the ingredients that are listed on the bag, and that I can call or e-mail someone about and get answers to my questions when I need them.
 
noblewoman, I don't think that trend is as prevalent in this industry, although it certainly occurs. Most holistic dog food companies are proud of their product, and for the most part they seem to care about their customers and their pets. TO is an extreme example of "head in the sand" business. By the way, that was a great post kennel_keeper. 
 
Thanks for the information dyan, I was wondering why TO felt it necessary to re-evaluate their agreements.

Despite the fact that they technically can be seen in rice, it's more commonly seen in cottonseed products, peanuts, and corn.  The reason we see it more in corn than anything else is because cattle can actually eat aflatoxin-infected corn and be fine (the microbes in their rumen break down the toxin before it's digested in the abomasum).  So, most people who are raising cattle for human consumption purchase aflatoxin infested corn because it's cheaper...so people who sell corn products are more likely to "accidentally" put infected corn in with "non-infected shipments."  In the case of Diamond, the corn that was stored in their bins was getting moldy around the outside where the moisture from the surrounding heat penetrated the corn's pericarp (outer protective covering), and when they tested that bin, they didn't take a representative sample; they most likely just took one from the middle of the bin, not the outside where the problem was.  Most companies have fans around the grain bins to prevent this from happening.   

[8|]

ORIGINAL: myorganicpets

I didn't imply anything about the Diamond connection w/that letter.  Straight from the horses mouth means simply that. THAT letter was directly from Mark and was HIS explaination as to why there was a hold up w/the food being manufactured.

Ok, I asked twice what that letter was addressing. It was not addressing the Diamond question at all. The fact that is was posted along with a quote about the Diamond issue was confusing.

 TO uses a USDA APHIS certfied plant to manufacture their foods. Diamond does NOT. APHIS certfication is EXTREMELY strict and that is why TO was taking care to make sure that their suppliers were going to pass the rigid inspections so that they would never have to deal w/an incident like Diamond's. 

Was that so hard? We could have avoided half this conversation had that been said at the beginning. Just out of curiousity... what is APHIS (edited, nevermind I looked it up) and where can I find this information about TO using it and Diamond not?

Thing is... DIAMOND's problem was not only with their suppliers, but with their own company for knowingly accepting grains that did not pass their own inspection requirements.

 
While the end result is the same , did they knowingly accept grains that didnt pass tests, or was someone sleeping on the job?  Big difference!

Edited: Sorry, double post.

[]

Diamond Pet Foods: Corn in dog food was not tested
Firm concedes error after FDA report
By JIM DuPLESSIS
Staff Writer

Federal regulators found widespread failure to test corn that went into dog food
made last fall at Diamond Pet Foods' Gaston plant.
Some of that corn contained high levels of aflatoxin that killed dozens of dogs
in the eastern United States.
Diamond Pet Foods admitted Tuesday that it failed to follow its own testing
guidelines.
The admission came after the release of a report in which U.S. Food and Drug
Administration investigators determined:
. Tests could not be verified for more than half the corn samples arriving at
the plant because the samples were missing: They were either lost or never
taken, the government said. Without them, the FDA said it could not determine
how much aflatoxin - if any - wound up in dog food.
. Among the samples that were kept, FDA tests found aflatoxin ranging from 90
parts per billion to 1,851 ppb - four to 90 times the FDA's limit of 20 parts
per billion for human and pet foods. Those samples represented four truckloads
of corn the company tested and cleared and used to make dog food.
. In 16 samples of batches of dried dog food, aflatoxin was found at levels
beyond the government's limit.
The FDA's findings do not carry penalties.
The report follows an investigation of the Lexington County plant begun after
Dec. 20, when Diamond Pet Foods recalled about 1 million pounds of dried pet
food made Sept. 1 through Dec. 7 (bearing use-by dates of March 1, 2007, through
June 7, 2007).
Mark Brinkmann, chief operating officer for the company based in Meta, Mo., had
said repeatedly since late December that "hot" batches were confined to food
made Oct. 1-15 (bearing use-by dates of April 1-15, 2007). He said tests ruled
out product contamination for September and after Oct. 15.
However, the FDA said, tests showed high levels of aflatoxin on incoming corn
received outside those dates: on Sept. 16, Oct. 31 and Nov. 21.
The FDA report also cited aflatoxin results not being listed in reports for 12
truckloads of corn received in September and October. The company's policy is to
check incoming corn for aflatoxin and keep samples.
"Quality control personnel who are responsible to ensure the collection and
storage of retention samples failed to notice the retention samples were not
being collected or were missing," the report said.
Diamond Pet Foods said it has "taken the necessary actions to prevent these
oversights from happening in the future."
"In addition, Diamond also has strengthened its testing procedures on incoming
shipments of corn, and initiated final product testing as an additive step to
its procedures. This additional step will provide an extra layer of protection
prior to the bagging and shipping of products."
Sam Davis, an S.C. Agriculture Department inspector who helped FDA
investigators, said the company has suffered financially from the recall.
"This company has lost a lot of market share," Davis said.
One dog owner has sued Diamond Pet Foods in U.S. District Court in Knoxville,
Tenn., seeking damages for her pet's illness. Lawyers in South Carolina and
elsewhere have said they also are preparing cases.
 


 

Sharon, I do agree with you on one point, about reading between the lines. To assume that TO is linked with Diamond because there was no denial of it in the letter would be erroneous. Others have told me I need to read between the lines which is just assuming facts not in evidence. Example, just because Dr. Remillard of petDIETS.com (she also happens to be an on-staff vet at Angel Memorial Hospital and vice-pres of the ACVN) doesn't shout from the rooftops not to feed your pet Science Diet doesn't mean she's in cahoots with them. If an owner was feeding their pet Science Diet, she might give them advice within the framework of what their feeding but not without a full check-up, etc. Yet, because she hasn't given a thumbs down on that, or any other commercial food, I was told I needed to read between the lines.
 
Nor do I think TO has to state publically that they are not linked with  Diamond. I would suggest that it is better to research companies. For example, Science Diet brand is owned by Hills, etc. That's certainly no secret.
 
I would also add, regardless of your posting style and whether or not you anger people, we can't hold you personally responsible for the actions of TO. I think, at times, it is easy to get passionate about something and to say things in the heat of the moment that can dilute or obfuscate what we are really trying to say.
 
Perhaps, initially, someone did assume the logistical glitches at TO were linked to Diamond without any direct proof, which would have certainly been listed on the FDA report. Just reading between the lines.
 

Well, there is a new post on ODO where the poster asserts that a Diamond rep confirmed it makes TO.
 
Your description of Remillard's position isn't quite acurrate, Ron.  Her failing to warn or dissuade people about SD would, as you say, be innocuous.  However, she goes way past that neutrality and affirmatively states that the small companies' products are of inferior quality, that the whole meat protein/organic pitch is "slick marketing" and that only Hills, Purina, etc. can "get it right".   You don't need to read between the lines - it's expressly stated!

(oops, sorry, wrong board. )

[&:]

Also to stress this even FURTHER.... Diamond makes no claim to using HUMAN GRADE meats in any of their foods, they also do NOT make any claim to using NewZealand or Australian beef. These are MANDATORY requirements of being able to process in a APHIS certified plant. 

 
I would be interested in seeing your source material for this information. I have never heard this before. Can you provide your source(s)?

Actually if you go to the Chicken Soup website, they say directly on there that they don't use human grade products because of price

Okay, I am getting cynical in my old age.  I think almost every brand o dog food claims to be perfect with perfect balance of viatmins and nutrents.  You watch any of the commercials on TV or read ads and they all say they are vet recommended, formulaed by vets, formulated by scientific studies, etc.  Each one claims to make your dog healthier,live longer, have special ingredients for this, that, or the other.  And this isn't just for dog food,but for laundry detergent, dish soap,  body lotion, gas treatment for you car, you name it.
 
All these companies are out to make money.  Naturally they are going to say what they make is the best..  I prefer oil of Olay body wash, my one daughter-in-law prefers St. Ives, the other prefers Dove.  I don't know that any one is better than they other--the ads by each claim they are the best.  I just know we all have a preference.
 
Forty years ago when i was pregnant with my first baby, I was sick 24/7 and there was very little I could keep down. XXXXX was one thing i could  One day hubby and I were eating lucnh and had XXXXX from one of the 2 liter bottles (I guess that was the size) and in the bottom of my glass was a large worm.  I threw up until I hurt.  Hubby took the glass with worm still in it and bottle back to grocery store and next thing we knew a rep was at our house with  FOUR FREE BOTTLES OF XXXXX.  Like we wanted XXXXX.  I still can't drink it to this day. (figured I better not spell it out.)  They also hinted the bottle had been tampered with at the store, or the worm had gotten into my glass when in the cabinet--I put glasses in rim down so nothing can get in and crawl around in them.  Were trying to cover their butts.
 
And my dealing with Fort Dodge after Hunter died of autoimmune hemolytic anemia 6 weeks after his proHeart6 injection left me totally disgusted with large companies, companies that are out to make money.  I have found half truths and out right untruths were and are still being told.
 
The point is, i don't really believe much of what any  big company says.  They do not want tosay anything that can hurt their sales.  They will deny stuff until it is crystal clear for the world to see, then make up lies as to why they denied it in the first place.
 
Now as to if Diamond makes the TOW or not, I really do not know.  I have read they did, and I have also read that the only connection between them is they both belong to the same parent company. Sort of like say Flamingos buying out  Smity's Frozen TV dinners, Sandy's Homestyle Pies, Toughie Luggage, etc, etc.  They continue to go by their original name, but are owned by one parent companyy.  I do not know if this is true ofTWO or not and I will try to locate where I read the name of the "parent company"